FAQs about Adi Da & Adidam > Other Traditions > Adidam and Postmodernism: Part 1

Adidam as a Post-Postmodern Tradition

Chris Tong, Ph.D.

Question: How does Adidam compare with postmodernism? Doesn't postmodernism reject the view that there is an Ultimate Reality, whereas Adidam is oriented around the view that there is an Ultimate Reality?

Brief Answer: Adidam is a post-postmodern tradition. Like postmodernism, Adidam rejects all egoic viewpoints as limited. But this is because it identifies the ego as the source of all limited viewpoints (which postmodernism fails to do). The immediate (and profoundly consequential) implication is that there is a Viewpoint that is not limited: if one transcends the ego perfectly, then "limited viewpoint" is also transcended in the Prior Unity that is revealed. Thus, unlike postmodernism, Adidam claims that there is a Prior Unity, and an ego-transcending (non-separative) Viewpoint associated with the Consciousness that is that Prior Unity. Also, unlike postmodernism, Adidam is not just a philosophy; it provides a means for Realizing that Consciousness (and Prior Unity) directly (not merely "knowing" it egoically, or forming limited viewpoints about it), and consequently, for transcending egoity altogether and all the limited points of view so greatly criticized by postmodernism.

This article contains the following subsections:

1. Adidam and postmodernism
2. Philosophy combined with practice
3. A historical progression
4. Postmodernism, integral theory, and post-postmodern traditions
5. Criteria for a progressive post-postmodern cultural tradition

1. Adidam and postmodernism

Where Adi Da and the postmodernists agree is on the virtue of identifying limiting points of view and their sources — to "raise them to consciousness" so as to help free oneself of the limits they represent. As author and art critic, Rajesh Shukla, puts it: "Adi Da is postmodern in this sense, because he knows the very locus from where things appear." Where the postmodernists might use "skepticism" as their means, practitioners of the Way of Adidam use a form of free and unrestricted enquiry, to supplement their direct devotional response to (and increasing awareness of, communion with, and ultimately Realization of) Reality Itself.

Where Adi Da and the postmodernists part ways is this: the postmodernists don't believe there is anything but limited point of view (just less limited points of view, perhaps); whereas Adi Da does describe and distinguish an unlimited, non-egoic Point of View, the Point of View of Consciousness, that is unmediated by the body (and its senses) or the mind, and that cannot be known (through the mind — hence Adi Da refers to it as "Divine Ignorance"), but can be Realized (and as such, Adi Da refers to it as "Perfect Knowledge").

Like Adidam, postmodernism rejects the traditional "objective" notions of truth. In the view of Adidam, "objectification" involves an observer dissociating himself or herself from an "observed", and the egoic act of separation involved in that objectification dissociates one from the nonseparate Prior Unity which, according to Adidam, is the Truth. (In Adidam, Truth is not the same as factuality.)

But postmodernism then goes on to presume that the only other alternative to a single "objective truth" is an infinite variety of limited, subjective truths. In contrast, Adidam holds that Truth is that which is always already the case, independent of viewpoint: Reality Itself. Semiologist Jacques Derrida, one of the founders of postmodernism, writes:

Jacques Derrida The entire history of the concept of structure, before the rupture of which we are speaking, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of centre for centre, as a linked chain of determinations of the centre. Successively, and in a regulated fashion, the centre receives different forms or names. The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix [...] is the determination of Being as presence in all senses of this word. It could be shown that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the centre have always designated an invariable presence – eidos, arche, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject), aletheia, transcendentality, consciousness, God, man, and so forth. Jacques Derrida Structure, Sign and Play, in Writing and Difference

But Adidam does not merely speak of "a center" (of which there are countless viewpoints, as Derrida rightly points out), or merely conceptualize a Divine Person to be Realized, or recommend an Aletheon to be read. Adidam agrees with Derrida that a purely objective truth is an impossibility. But Adidam doesn't stop with talk or viewpoint. Unlike postmodernism, Adidam isn't just a philosophy. It is one more philosophy, but it is not just one more philosophy. It provides a means for Realizing Reality Itself — which has no center, no "object", and no separative, limited, or egoic viewpoint whatsoever. In this sense, Adidam could be called "Perfect Philosophy" (to use Adi Da's phrase), in that it doesn't merely talk about Ultimate Reality, but it also provides the means for Realizing the Ultimate Reality it describes.

Avatar Adi Da Samraj In [Divine Enlightenment], there is no surface, no dimension, no center, no size. There is perfect rest at the surface and at the center. There is no definition to the being. There is perfect expansion then, which is not equivalent to having achieved a point above or outside or inside, but which is the same as having achieved no point whatsoever, having perfectly penetrated the whole affair that defines the being. The natural disposition in [Divine Enlightenment] is perfectly formless, without quality, without world, without relations, without size, without dilemma — absolute freedom from all the implications of birth and death, survival and transcendence, inwardness and adventure. Avatar Adi Da Samraj, "May All Beings Run to This Mere Truth" The Way That I Teach

2. Philosophy combined with practice

Thus the key distinction between Adidam and postmodernism is this: postmodernism is a philosophy; Adidam is not only a philosophy, but a spiritual and transcendental Way.[1] The postmodernist belief that there is no "absolute reality" and there is nothing but limited points of view is a philosophical presumption built into postmodernism. It is not a conclusion reached by exhaustive observation or experience of the nature of reality. In contrast, the view of Adidam — that there is an Ultimate Reality, That which is always already the case — is testable, and the Way of Adidam is given as the means for testing that claim. (Indeed, no one can even become a devotee of Adi Da, or take up the Way of Adidam without having first received the direct Revelation of the Divine Reality. The practice of Adidam deepens that Revelation, and enables it to become Realization.) In this sense, postmodernism is susceptible to a criticism similar to the one Adi Da makes of scientific materialism:

In other words, if one had a choice between a philosophy (like postmodernism) that simply presumes up front that there is no Absolute Reality, and a spiritual Way that offers a means for finding out whether there is an Absolute Reality (and moreover, a means for Realizing the Perfect and Eternal Happiness of that Absolute Reality), which would you choose?

Plato

This is why it is so important to not merely study philosophy, but to also study the Great Tradition of spiritual and transcendental practices throughout history. Western philosophy has had a long tradition (and bias) of valuing conceptualization over practice, dating back to the idealism of Plato, two and a half millennia ago. But mere conceptualization is limited by the point of view of the body-mind, which can only be transcended through practice, not thought alone.

The "limited viewpoints" that postmodernism presumes are an inherent aspect of all human communication are actually the by-product of an identification with a limited form (a limited body-mind): its limited awareness, senses, limited conceptualizations, etc. Dissolve that identification with the limited body-mind (through spiritual and other practices) and the limited viewpoint is dissolved as well. Such practice includes fundamental changes in the habits of the body-mind that are purposed toward freeing up energy and attention for the sake of Revelation — that is, they cut into the body-mind's obsession with its usual "mundane" objects (money, food, sex, and the like) so that it has the potential for coming into contact with Something Greater. Whether it is the rigorous ascetic disciplines undergone by monastic Christian mystics or native Americans on a vision quest, or the life-positive, God-Communion-supporting practices of the Way of Adidam, all these practices transform the practitioner's body-mind into a different kind of instrument more suited for greater-than-material discovery and Revelation — and the greatest such practices place one in Consciousness Itself, directly aware of Reality, rather than one's awareness of Reality always only being mediated through a body-mind.

Thomas Aquinas

Philosophy about the nature of reality without practice (and without being able to directly confirm one's philosophical presumptions through the Realization that comes with practice) is something like scientific theory without scientific instruments and experimentation using those instruments (to test the theory). Creating, refining, or integrating ideologies is a rather dull enterprise when compared with receiving genuine Revelation! [5] As Thomas Aquinas, probably the greatest and most brilliant of the medieval Church fathers, put it: Mihi videtur ut palea — "All my words are mere straw" — when at the end of his life of fleshing out the core of Catholic theology (particularly in his Summa Theologica), he experienced an actual spiritual Revelation.

3. A historical progression

From a historical viewpoint, Adidam is rightly understood as a new, post-postmodern tradition:

1. Modernity began with the Renaissance and flowered during the Enlightenment period. Modernity exceeds its predecessor, medievalism, in presuming that there is an objective reality which can be discovered with certainty through observation and reason. Modernity provided (what postmodernists would call) a set of "grand narratives", including Isaac Newton's model of the physical universe, the Enlightenment era notion that democracy is the most enlightened form of government, etc.
   
   
2. Modernism arose at the end of the nineteenth century, and lasted until the mid-twentieth century. It represented a rebellion against the conservative values of realism and tradition, and an emphasis on freedom of expression, experimentation, radicalism, and primitivism. While modernism was historically coincident and resonant with Einstein's theory of relativity, Freud's notions about the unconscious, etc., modernism largely expressed itself through various new movements in art and literature, including art that rejected the traditional notions of perspective, surrealistic art, abstract expressionism, pop art, minimalism, jazz, etc.
   
   
3. Postmodernism (dating from the mid-twentieth century) provides a methodology for questioning (or deconstructing) any viewpoint that claims to be objective, "privileged", or absolute — including all the grand narratives of modernism and modernity altogether (along with the religious "grand narratives" of medievalism). Its strength is that it can expose limits of traditionally embraced viewpoints. Its weakness is that it simply presumes there is nothing but limited viewpoint (and that there is no Ultimate Reality beyond limited viewpoint) — which presumption is itself yet another "grand narrative" worthy of deconstruction (see, for example, Habermas [2]). Because its primary tool is skepticism, postmodernism's primary mood is nihilism and despair, and the culture that has formed around postmodernist thinking reflects that mood.[3]
   
   
4. Post-postmodern Adidam agrees with postmodernism in critiquing the simplistic notion of an objective reality. Like postmodernism, Adidam rejects all egoic (i.e. separative) viewpoints as limited. But this is because it identifies the ego as the source of all limited viewpoints (which is something postmodernism fails to do). The immediate (and profoundly consequential) implication is that there is a Viewpoint that is not limited: if one transcends the ego perfectly, then "limited viewpoint" is also transcended in the Prior Unity that is revealed. Thus, unlike postmodernism, Adidam claims that there is a Prior Unity, and an ego-transcending (non-separative) Viewpoint associated with the Consciousness that is that Prior Unity. Adidam also provides a means for Realizing that Consciousness (and Prior Unity) directly (not merely "knowing" it egoically, or forming limited viewpoints about it). It is in this precise sense that Adidam practitioners engage in "Perfect Philosophy" and Realize "Perfect Knowledge":
   
   

   Except for "Perfect Knowledge", all "knowledge" is mere ideas, the fantasies of "point of view", entirely imperfect, intrinsically limited, partial, and insufficient, altogether not-Truth, not-Divine, not-Reality, not-Freedom, not-Happiness, and a merely mortal, unnecessary, and egoically "self"-deluded occupation of human mummery. All imperfect "knowledge" is bunk. . . . In general, people do not understand that they are (literally) living in an egoic illusion of mind. . . . "Perfect Knowledge" Is Intrinsic Freedom from all bondage, all of mind, all of egoity, all seeking, all sorrow, and even all of death and loss. Avatar Adi Da Samraj, Perfect Philosophy

   
   

Because postmodernism undercuts the ultimate significance of anything (by fiat, not by actual investigation), it tends to leave in its wake people struggling to find meaning. A typical conservative backlash to the confusion, nihilism, and relativization of values associated with postmodernism is the attempt to find meaning by returning to traditional, pre-modern religions and belief systems: hence the rise of religious fundamentalism around the world (including in the United States).[4] In contrast, Adidam accepts and acknowledges what has been culturally and practically useful in the historical period (from the sixteenth to the twentieth century) associated with the questioning of traditional religions and values (along with their subsequent decline), and the rise of scientific materialism in the wake of the demonstrable success of technology and its accomplishments. Like postmodernism, Adidam is critical of mere belief systems. However, unlike postmodernism (which presumes all there are are belief systems), Adidam raises the further question: why settle for mere belief systems (or for merely criticizing them), when there is a greater alternative: the potential for Realizing Reality itself (beyond all limited point of view), and for creating a Reality-based culture (rather than a belief-based culture)?

Postmodernism is a process of disillusionment — the stripping away of illusions. But Adidam does not stop there. The Way of Adidam is a process of positive disillusionment: it strips away illusions at the same time as it Reveals Reality Itself.

Benjamin Franklin

Postmodernism resonates well with the familiar maxim, "question authority" — which has its right place in human maturation, as well as the maturation of civilization altogether. Indeed, one of its earliest proponents was Benjamin Franklin, who said: "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." But "question authority" remains merely (and petulantly) adolescent, if one never finds an authority or organizing principle to which one can submit oneself and one's life. In other words, such a person is "questioning authority" because he or she reacts to and rejects authority altogether, in adolescent fashion; in contrast, mature "questioning of authority" is always constructive, and in service to the finding and/or creation of appropriate authority, understanding that a meaningful life requires an organizing principle.

This is so for each individual; and the same is true of a civilization in toto. Civilization is, by and large, still in its adolescence, characterized by adolescent, reactionary philosophies (like postmodernism, whose very name is a reaction), adolescent ideologies (like the political notion of the "sovereign state", when used by a state — most commonly, by Russia and China — as a hedge against "intervention" by other states in the international community that is aimed at protecting the human rights of that state's citizens), and adolescent attitudes.

The true adulthood of human civilization lies in an actually life-transforming practice capable of finding Reality Itself (beyond all the limited viewpoints postmodernism rightly criticizes), wedded to a post-postmodern philosophy (or "perfect philosophy") which calls and inspires everyone to bring themselves into alignment with Reality Itself and to make Reality Itself one's ultimate Sanctuary, Authority, Organizing Principle, and Guide. This allows the heart-felt Prior Unity of Reality Itself to guide humankind in manifesting a cooperative and compassionate "new world order" — which reflects that Prior Unity by serving and benefitting all its members, not just a few that are singled out by wealth, religion, nation, race, gender, or any other form of limited identity. (See Adi Da's Not-Two Is Peace for more.)

In this sense, Adidam points the way to a future beyond the bleakness of postmodernism.[7] Adidam provides a means not merely for the enlightenment of individuals, but for the development of an entire, ego-transcending, "Reality-based" human culture that is not based on any limited, egoic viewpoint, but founded instead on direct awareness of (and abiding in) Reality Itself:

I wrote earlier: "In this sense, Adidam points the way to a future beyond the bleakness of postmodernism." Having one post-postmodern tradition in existence means the adulthood of civilization is at least possible. But how much time must pass before civilization altogether has entered its adulthood — i.e., post-postmodern traditions have become the core of civilization — is something only time will tell.

Consider this: The notion of a "round earth" was first conceptualized in the 5th century BC by Greek philosophers, and Greek astronomers had physical proof by the 3rd century BC. However, the actual adoption of the idea worldwide was a slow process, that continued through the Middle Ages, perhaps only finally firmly displacing the "flat earth" idea when Magellan circumnaviated the globe (from 1519 to 1522).

So a lot of time may be required for civilization to fully enter its adulthood, although we can hope for faster progress than the "flat earth" to "round earth" transition, given the global interconnectedness of today's world.

4. Postmodernism, integral theory, and post-postmodern traditions

One way of viewing integral theory is as an attempt at a constructive response to the criticisms of postmodernism: how can one evolve a conceptual framework that doesn't suffer from the liabilities of "viewpoint" identified by postmodernism? Integral theory's answer: keep adding, or "integrating" to the theory, to address any liabilities due to incompleteness. For this reason, some advocates of integral theory have even suggested that integral theory is itself a post-postmodern tradition, for example:

Of course the primary liability that both postmodernism and integral theory share is that they are both primarily working in "idea space", not Reality Itself.

Ken Wilber

There is perhaps no one more skilled today at refining, integrating, and syncretizing ideas and ideologies than Ken Wilber. That competence (and personal value) is even reflected in the name of his creation, "integral theory". If someone has an idea that isn't currently in his "integral theory", and he runs across it, he'll "assimilate" it ("Borg"-like, for those familiar with Star Trek) into his theory. He's a kind of one-man, conceptual vacuum cleaner! Ideas, rather than reality itself, are the primary focus of this enterprise.

For this reason, there is a huge difference between developers of conceptual frameworks (like Wilber), whose primary impulse (on the face of where they spend their time and energy) is to create an ever more inclusive theory (and, ultimately, a "theory of everything" [8]); and a Realizer and Transmitter like Adi Da, whose primary impulse is to directly transmit the Revelation — the direct awareness — of what He describes in His conceptual framework, for the sake of liberating all beings. For the former, the conceptual framework is everything. For the latter, the conceptual framework is a necessary nuisance, words and concepts that need to be developed for, and communicated to a culture that lacks direct spiritual sensitivity. Hence Adi Da's description of "the Ancient Walk-About Way", in which the Realizer is recognized, the Revelation is received, and, ultimately, the Realization is Realized through spiritual practice, all with minimal verbal exchange or conceptualization. Few words are needed because of the practitioner's initial, and then ever-growing, spiritual sensitivity. There is an "assimilation", but it is not the assimilation of concepts into a conceptual framework. It is the assimilation of being that is associated with the sacrifice of the separate self (i.e., the awakening from the illusion of being a separate self) and the Realization of the Divine:

It is worth comparing the scientific method with postmodernism, integral theory, and Adidam. The scientific method has three key steps that form an ongoing feedback loop:

• Formulate a theory or hypothesis.
• Test the theory against reality. Formulate criticisms of the theory based on the results.
• Revise or refine the theory, based on the criticisms.

Postmodernism is a tradition that has just one of these three "steps":

• Formulate criticisms of the theory [via deconstruction, incredulity or irony regarding grand narratives, parataxis, pastiche, etc.]

Integral theory adds a feedback loop, but one which does not explicitly integrate with reality (or Reality):

• Formulate a theory or hypothesis.
• Formulate criticisms of the theory [largely by comparing it with other not-yet-assimiliated theories].
• Revise or refine the theory, based on the criticisms.

By way of contrast, the process by which Adi Da evolved and refined the Way of Adidam has the following steps, and — like the scientific method — does involve reality in its feedback process (and goes beyond the scientific method by involving Reality Itself):

• Formulate a theory of Reality (and the ultimate nature of everything) and how to Realize Reality [based on Adi Da's Own Realization].
• Formulate criticisms of the theory [largely on the basis of observing where devotees are not actually advancing in their own Realization of Reality].
• Revise or refine the theory, based on the criticisms. Also: re-incarnate the Divine Reality (re-integrate the Divine Reality with the body-mind, as Adi Da did several times during His lifetime) in a way that makes the Way of Realizing the Divine Reality even more accessible.

Thus, in not including reality (or Reality) in its feedback loop, and restricting its evolutionary process to the space of ideas, integral theory is not actually a "post-postmodern tradition", but rather a "constructive" form of postmodernism.

5. Criteria for a progressive post-postmodern cultural tradition

Medievalism, modernity, modernism, and postmodernism form a clearly recognizable cultural progression, even (as we suggested earlier) with clear parallels to individual maturation (with modernism and postmodernism analogous to adolescence and the development of discrimination). While there are many movements now that are a reaction to postmodernism and an attempt to move in a new direction — and in a strictly literal sense are thus "post" postmodern (insofar as they are occurring chronologically after the peak of postmodernism) — many of them are not progressive; they do not necessarily represent a step forward.

When we refer to Adidam as "post-postmodern", we do mean that it is a step forward in the progression, not just a sideways step (or even a backward step, as in various attempts to return to modernism). Thus we use the term "post-postmodern" in a prescriptive (not merely descriptive) sense, with the following distinguishing criteria:

• A Viewpoint beyond limited viewpoint. A post-postmodern cultural tradition must not merely aspire to the "greatest possible viewpoint" (through conceptual accretion or any other means), but must present a viewpoint that directly reflects Reality Itself (and in so doing, transcends all limited viewpoints).
  
  
• Realization beyond mere conceptualization. A post-postmoderm cultural tradition must do much more than have a "theory of everything".[8] Its core must be a means for directly Realizing (beyond conceptualization) the true nature of everything.
  
  
• Self-transcendence. A post-postmodern cultural tradition must not merely avoid language or focus on experience over and against words (for example, as in Eshelman's "performatism" [5]), since self-involved experience has its own range of limitations, just like language and viewpoints expressed through language. A post-postmodern tradition must be grounded in the absolute self-transcendence represented by Ultimate Revelation, since, short of complete self-transcendence, the self or ego is the source of all limited viewpoint, whether verbal or experiential.
  
  
• Reality-based participation. A post-postmodern cultural tradition must not merely be participatory and relational in its generation of meaning (for example, as in Alan Kirby's digimodernism [6]). A meaning that comes out of the combination of "self" and "other" (author/reader, artist/viewer, etc. — two egos, no matter how you cut it) still suffers the limitations of egoity (which creates the sense that "self" and "other" are separate) in general, and the egoity of its participants in particular. But a post-postmodern cultural tradition will be participatory in a self-transcending manner: in a way that dissolves the sense of separation between self and other because it is grounded in the Divine (Reality Itself), the nonseparate Source Condition of all beings and things.
  
  
• A means for transcending limited viewpoint altogether. Postmodernism characteristically places great emphasis on language. For this reason, many would-be post-postmodern traditions shift the emphasis to another modality, as we have seen (for example, experience or participation). But a limited viewpoint shows up in all these venues: expressed in language; felt as experience; or felt in relationship to others. A real way beyond all limited viewpoint of every kind necessarily must provide a means for identifying and locating the very source of "limited viewpoint" (egoity itself) and fully transcending it. This is the purpose of the Way of Adidam.
  
  

RETURN TO "COMPARISONS WITH OTHER TRADITIONS"

FOOTNOTES